What is Energy?

[anak]

Nothing comes from nothing, therefore god exists?

What is energy, where does it come from?

How does a nuclear reaction stop?

Thank you for your time.

[WarrenBuffet]

In physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) and other sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), energy (from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language)energos, "active, working") is a scalar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29) physical quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantity)kinetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy), potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy), thermal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy), electromagnetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_energy), chemical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_energy), nuclear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy), and mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_energy) have been defined to explain all known natural phenomena.
Energy is converted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transformation) from one form to another, but it is never created or destroyed. This principle, the conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system). According to Noether's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem), the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.
Although the total energy of a system does not change with time, its value may depend on the frame of reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference). For example, a passenger in a moving airplane has zero kinetic energy relative to the airplane, but nonzero kinetic energy relative to the earth. that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Several different forms, such as ενεργός,

[anak]

zaa, thank you for spamming. I can search wikipedia, too. wikipedia only says the energy is something that is measurable. are you saying that energy is a concept, like other characteristics such as color, firmness, fluidity, etc...

i am not asking what energy is defined as, within the limits of our language. i want to know the essence of energy. am i illogical in asking what energy is, that it only can be defined in relation to a tangible 'thing'. Is energy intangible?

[bigboab]

Energy; the equivalent of or the capacity for doing work.:)

[anak]

Energy; the equivalent of or the capacity for doing work.:)
don't describe to me what energy does, i want to know what it is.
you don't define coffee as something that burns your tongue, do you?

[bigboab]

Energy; the equivalent of or the capacity for doing work.:)
don't describe to me what energy does, i want to know what it is.
you don't define coffee as something that burns your tongue, do you?

I cant be more succinct than the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.:)

My name is shorter though.

[anak]

a popular encyclopedia must contain no substantial concepts, so that the layman may understand it. For nonscientific purposes, the widely accepted "ability to do work" definition of energy is sufficient. I doubt that energy is an intangible characteristic, which is what the encyclopedia defines energy as....

[rivendail]

e=mc^2
btw you cant calculate the exact moment the nuclear reaction stop

[bigboab]

There are different types of energy.

Active energy; this includes wave power, wind etc.

Inactive or dead energy; coal ,oil, wood etc. This needs a catalyst to release it.

[Sextent]

Nothing comes from nothing, therefore god exists?



That's not a question, it's a statement

[lynx]

Nothing comes from nothing, therefore god exists?If nothing comes from nothing, where would god come from?

[Busyman™]

Nothing comes from nothing, therefore god exists?If nothing comes from nothing, where would god come from?

God always was.....vs. a molecule always was.:ermm:

It really comes down to whether one believes a sentient being started it all or whether a poof pow of something non-sentient started it all.

The first is much more believable since I believe ultimately the start of something involves a decision and that rules are made.

[Snee]

The creation of this universe, and all the molecules in it could just be a migration from another state. Matter is an illusion anyways, everything is energy (according to some, anyway). But I suppose it might have had to start somewhere even so.

The thing is, tho', if I'm to get all esoteric about it, like, that current theories don't see this universe as all there is. Whether we're talking a holographic universe, m-space or another macroverse, or I don't know what, most of the rules we know probably don't apply to what else is there. And that makes the prevalence of things like absolute beginnings and ends inside of all there is a tad unpredictable. Not to mention that time might not be what it seems to be.

It might be that everything is circular, like a constant stream from one state to the other, or it might be that everything is constant, maybe like a big fat static phase space, and we're looking at it, living it really, from the wrong angle. Kinda' tricky to define energy, then.

[Metaphysic]

I believe that, if pondered philosophically, the idea of energy might seem to consist purely of '+' (symbolizing focused positivity); the opposite: '-', a bending of the term (sprouting earnestly under theoretical discovery) runs along a nonexistent/pale thread primarily composed of scientifically altered psychological feedback (regarding the changing tiles of mankind through processed evolution: ultimately abstract). Through balance, one might discover harmony (the spectrum/wavelength cohesive and brilliantly fused) which exists, in a way, as the lesser relative, speaking through wisdom/experience, challenging fault. There is no clear way to define a term, which could be why some individuals solely rely on physics. Without a doubt, physics (disregarding the meta) brings light to/enflames the abstract/unknown, figuratively filling the crevices of history with a paste-like monotony that, like shards of muscle, function on the relativity of a flowing organism.

...just peeling some thought.

[Snee]

I believe that, if pondered philosophically, the idea of energy might seem to consist purely of '+' (symbolizing focused positivity); the opposite: '-', a bending of the term (sprouting earnestly under theoretical discovery) runs along a nonexistent/pale thread primarily composed of scientifically altered psychological feedback (regarding the changing tiles of mankind through processed evolution: ultimately abstract). Through balance, one might discover harmony (the spectrum/wavelength cohesive and brilliantly fused) which exists, in a way, as the lesser relative, speaking through wisdom/experience, challenging fault. There is no clear way to define a term, which could be why some individuals solely rely on physics. Without a doubt, physics (disregarding the meta) brings light to/enflames the abstract/unknown, figuratively filling the crevices of history with a paste-like monotony that, like shards of muscle, function on the relativity of a flowing organism.

...just peeling some thought.

On the off-chance I hadn't confused the fuck out of everybody enough, you thought you'd bring it home, did you?

Well played.

[AmpeD]

potential or kinetic energy? elastic or gravitational potential energy?

[Aaxel21]

Energy puts things in motion. I saw they manged to bottle it and call it Gatorade.

[lynx]

If nothing comes from nothing, where would god come from?

God always was.....vs. a molecule always was.:ermm:

It really comes down to whether one believes a sentient being started it all or whether a poof pow of something non-sentient started it all.

The first is much more believable since I believe ultimately the start of something involves a decision and that rules are made.Sorry, that's nonsense.

There's absolutely no reason why the statement "god always was" should be any more true than the statement "a molecule always was".

Just to put things into perspective, the logic behind that statement is true, and always has been. Since logic is abstract and doesn't need any physical entity, it surely has a higher standing than any god, molecule, energy wave or whatever else we want to think up.

[Busyman™]

God always was.....vs. a molecule always was.:ermm:

It really comes down to whether one believes a sentient being started it all or whether a poof pow of something non-sentient started it all.

The first is much more believable since I believe ultimately the start of something involves a decision and that rules are made.Sorry, that's nonsense.

There's absolutely no reason why the statement "god always was" should be any more true than the statement "a molecule always was".

Just to put things into perspective, the logic behind that statement is true, and always has been. Since logic is abstract and doesn't need any physical entity, it surely has a higher standing than any god, molecule, energy wave or whatever else we want to think up.

Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.

[lynx]

Sorry, that's nonsense.

There's absolutely no reason why the statement "god always was" should be any more true than the statement "a molecule always was".

Just to put things into perspective, the logic behind that statement is true, and always has been. Since logic is abstract and doesn't need any physical entity, it surely has a higher standing than any god, molecule, energy wave or whatever else we want to think up.

Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.
You can prefer whatever you want, that still doesn't answer the question "what made god?".

The argument "god always was" can be countered by "the molecule always was" and "the rules have always existed", getting rid of the need for them to have been devised.

[Busyman™]

Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.
You can prefer whatever you want, that still doesn't answer the question "what made god?".

The argument "god always was" can be countered by "the molecule always was" and "the rules have always existed", getting rid of the need for them to have been devised.

Uhhuh :1eye: .....and I can counter with somethin' unentulligunt didn't start it all. That would be just ridiculous.

Let's go around the carousel one mo' time, lynx.

[thewizeard]

Energy; the equivalent of or the capacity for doing work.:)
don't describe to me what energy does, i want to know what it is.
you don't define coffee as something that burns your tongue, do you?

:O Let us, do our best to explain in a simple way to answer your simple questions , so you can grasp the concept of energy. You didn't, in you original question, make any limitations, now suddenly .."dont this... don't that". how could you possibly be able to understand it, if you reject every simple concept that's offered? First you describe for me the colour red or the taste of an apple?, then I will give you comprehensive answers to your troll questions. :ermm:

ps: cold coffee does not burn one's tongue.. yet it will melt ice.

[bigboab]

don't describe to me what energy does, i want to know what it is.
you don't define coffee as something that burns your tongue, do you?

:O Let us, do our best to explain in a simple way to answer your simple questions , so you can grasp the concept of energy. You didn't, in you original question, make any limitations, now suddenly .."dont this... don't that". how could you possibly be able to understand it, if you reject every simple concept that's offered? First you describe for me the colour red or the taste of an apple?, then I will give you comprehensive answers to your troll questions. :ermm:

ps: cold coffee does not burn one's tongue.. yet it will melt ice.

I agree. There is a simple answer to most things.


@Busy, do you take your coffee cold with ice?:)

[lynx]

You can prefer whatever you want, that still doesn't answer the question "what made god?".

The argument "god always was" can be countered by "the molecule always was" and "the rules have always existed", getting rid of the need for them to have been devised.

Uhhuh :1eye: .....and I can counter with somethin' unentulligunt didn't start it all. That would be just ridiculous.

Let's go around the carousel one mo' time, lynx.Busy, I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter what you believe, that's up to you and personal to you, I don't care one way or the other.

The argument "god always was", can be equally applied to anything else. If it is applied to something else then there is no need for a creator, supreme being or otherwise, to have devised anything else, everything can simply follow from the original "things".

On the other hand, if you insist that there always has to be creation, then by inference that must equally apply to the creator. To claim otherwise is to assert that there does NOT need to be creation, which leads us back to where we started.

The conclusion is that this argument does not lead anywhere in the proof or otherwise of a supreme being.

[Barbarossa]

Sorry, that's nonsense.

There's absolutely no reason why the statement "god always was" should be any more true than the statement "a molecule always was".

Just to put things into perspective, the logic behind that statement is true, and always has been. Since logic is abstract and doesn't need any physical entity, it surely has a higher standing than any god, molecule, energy wave or whatever else we want to think up.

Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.

It is not more believable to me :noes:

[Biggles]

Sorry, that's nonsense.

There's absolutely no reason why the statement "god always was" should be any more true than the statement "a molecule always was".

Just to put things into perspective, the logic behind that statement is true, and always has been. Since logic is abstract and doesn't need any physical entity, it surely has a higher standing than any god, molecule, energy wave or whatever else we want to think up.

Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.

You clearly didn't see the referee we had a couple of weeks ago. The result still stood despite the arbitrary nature of the events as they unfolded.

What we see is a possible outcome of events, perhaps the only possible outcome perhaps not. It is possible to look back and apply meaning or intent to that outcome but any number of such interpretations will fit. Predicting future outcomes is more tricky.